Length Really, Really Matters; And Other Suggestive Reasons Why the Web Show Should Be Longer
I think we’re here. I think it’s time. I think we’ve grown up, tuned in, changed perceptions and revolutionized. I think it’s time for us, as viewers and creators, to be able to watch and make a web series that’s longer than 7 minutes.
Here’s the thing.
I think the short-form content thing is a product of how this whole thing started, which is — before video hosting sites could support high-quality video and before people started watching actual television online. Then, it made sense. This was the YouTube stage, when we had to get people’s attention and get them used to watching actual entertainment on their computer, and so, we started them off with a small dose (sketch comedy, kittens), then, when they were hooked, slowly increased their hit (Break a Leg, The Burg, Same Has 7 Friends, We Need Girlfriends, The Guild, etc.), and now… well, we’re in the same place.
For the last three years.
While people are watching more TV online, while Hulu is gaining popularity with a mainstream audience, we continue to make videos as if our viewership is still watching them through grain-filled goggles, as if their connections still can’t support high-quality video, as if every sign wasn’t pointing to web TV growing at crazy rates.
But Yuri, you say, stats show that people stop watching at around the 5-7 minute mark. This drives me a little batty. First of all, correlation does not mean causation. That is, just because people stop watching at the 5 minute mark, doesn’t mean that the reason they stop watching at the 5 minute mark is because they only have patience for five minute content on the internet. It could be that they don’t really like the series. Hell, it could be that the series is just plain ol’ bad.
If I had to bet a ruble, I would say that TV has the exact same issue. I’m sure people tune out at the 5-7 minute mark when they’re not into a show. TV is just as ADD as the Internet — why is clicking to another tab easier than pressing “up” on your remote control? Why do we keep insisting that it’s harder to get into our “style” of entertainment? It isn’t. Hell, if anything, it’s a little easier.
The other thing is — the sample size isn’t big enough to make such strong, blanket statements as “no one watches long-form content” because, frankly, there aren’t that many great shows.
Oh, it’s gotten MUCH better. I once wrote a blog about the death of the web series, using, admittedly, hyperbole to suggest that we needed much higher-quality content if we were to compete against TV and if this thing was to survive and flourish. I arrogantly think I was proven right after Bannen Way and a few other shows popped up, showing us that we seriously had to raise our game to actually get funded. And we did. Web shows are getting significantly better.
But, like with all entertainment, there’s a lot of bad in the good. The problem with allowing everyone who has a camera to make a show means that the majority of those shows won’t be very good. That’s just the nature of the beast, and that’s fine. The main issue is that it pollutes the sample size and gets people to say strong, generic statements like, “Nobody watches web shows that are longer than 7 minutes.”
All that aside, I think the short length hurts the growth of our industry. I think regular viewers see a 7 minute series and think, “Eh, it’s just a web show.” There’s a negative connotation there and I think, honestly, a mainstream audience that’s used to watching longer content on television would find it easier to watch something of a similar length online. It’s habitual. They’re used to stories being told in those lengths. Yes, those are limits made by TV because of ads, etc., but you know what? We’re still growing, and if we can use some of the habits formed by TV to get viewers to start watching independent content, then great. We can start pushing them out of their comfort zones when they’re hooked on our worlds.
I recently did a poll on Facebook and asked: ”Would you be more inclined to watch a high-quality, extremely well-shot, -scripted, and -acted web series if it was longer (22 mins)? Or shorter (7 mins)?”
The majority of respondents said 22 minutes. A few even added “60 minutes” as an option. Only 8 chose the shorter version. This isn’t proof of anything — I’m not suggesting I’m a statistician by any means — but it does suggest that the average, mainstream viewer (which most of my friends are — there’s hardly a web show watcher among them) is ready for longer content online.
They just need someone to make them something good online.
I think we’ve all done amazing things with the current length constraints. I think people are getting good at it and I think we’re squeezing every ounce of story, character, plot and all else out of those minutes. I think we can still do better. I think we’ve still got to keep raising our game. But I do think that we’re ready to take our shows to the next level.
So, here’s what I think we should do.
To those creators who are venturing forth to create their own series on their own buck — here’s a challenge for you. Make a 22 minute series. Start changing perceptions. We need trailblazers and it ain’t easy being one, but, well, we need you. I know it’s hard. But for the people who ask us how we’ve managed to survive and make money in this space for over 7 years — we started by making a relatively good 22 minute series. I’m just saying.
To those creators who have a proven track record and budgets — start pitching longer content. We’re trying — I’m not sure if it’s working yet, but eventually someone will take a risk. The more established creators do it, the more the people with money will start listening — we ARE the professionals here, right? We’re the ones who gave birth to this space, let’s keep maturing it.
To the brands, agencies, agents, networks and everyone else who has money and is looking to make a splash on the market — I know it’s scary and I know this isn’t exactly the best time for it but, won’t somebody, anybody take a risk?
Our quality is there, our talent is there, our drive is there, so let’s stop giving ourselves time constraints and continue pushing that envelope.
I think we’re ready… and I’ m the guy who said the web series is dying.
It’s all about the physical position one is in when watching. If I am at my desk, I might sit though 7-minute video, rarely any longer. When I sit on the couch across from my mac mini, I can be captive for an hour or more. The thing is, I am still a very, very small minority. Very few people watch the internet from the comfort of their couch, so there is still more opportunity and growth in short-form content
I say you should keep making 7-minute internet content for the next few years. In a couple years, all those non-webshow-watchers will be watching TV over the internet, and they won’t particularly care what technology delivered it to them. That audience is captive for your half-hour show.
Your thoughts make me think of debates in publishing right now over the self published. It is difficult to get really meaningful information based on raw data because anyone CAN publish, so the crap that comes out muddies up any truly helpful information about the success of it.
I, for one, would love to see quality series like Leap Year lengthen their episodes. The idea that people won’t watch more than 7 minutes on the Internet is pretty ridiculous when I know more and more people who cancel their cable service and only view their favorite shows via Hulu, Netflix stream, etc.
Who said people don’t watch more than 7 minutes on the internet? To be sure, I said that I can watch hours of internet TV when I’m in the right position.
Great article Yuri. As always you have a charming way of getting your opinions across… even if I disagree (but only slightly!!)
I definintely think the internet has more of an obstacle because of the nature of it being viewed on your computer. Typically the player is competing on the small screen with other windows and it allows the ADD in all of us to act up and want to change stimuli. Its true that some people may tune out of a TV show if they’re not interested after 5-7 minutes but typically the show they’re watching is the only thing thats on their screen, so its a different ball game. And even more so is the commitment of going to a movie theatre even if a small percentage is willing to walk out if they’re unsatisfied.
I personally don’t think there should be any standards on internet episode length. I actually wrote a blog about this a few months ago. (JWarrenPiece.Wordpress.com) The beauty in this medium is that people can still define what their show is not only by its genre but also by its length, how often each episode comes out, etc. This is a freedom that will be the death of many rising filmmakers who don’t know how to harness it.
As the test of time always shows this debate will be determined by monetization. For feature films that come out in theaters they felt that 90 minutes to say… 3 hours (?) is the right range to expect people to sit in a theatre. There are exceptions in both directions while the norm lands between 90-120…
For TV, they eventually deemed a series as either a 1/2 hour or hour long show, as it was considered lesser quality and audiences shouldn’t be expected to “sit longer for less” (I’m sure the history of television is much more complex than that but you get the point)… But more importantly the television medium was certainly dictated by advertising.
In imagining the future of web entertainment I am willing to predict that there won’t be a standard length. I can see various categories popping up…
5 minutes sounds like a round number and, hey, doesn’t the internet production value seem approximately 1/6th of the quality of regular half-hour TV? Arbitrary but why not? While making Bannen we tried to satisfy that molded expectation of a 5 minute episode while challenging how many episodes there needed to be in a web series. That is what eventually led us to structuring it like a feature (anticipating a DVD distribution outlet). But again, the only reason that worked was because it fit a monetary model that works already.
You’re suggestion of 22 minute episodes is perfectly logical, and already on the way. For two reasons: one, if you shoot, say, 6 episodes of 22 minutes in length then you can package them as a mini tv series for the international market (Sony Crackle’s new model, by the way). The second reason 22 minutes works is because your web series can serve as a pilot presentation. This obviously can work for an hour long (or 44 minutes) as well.
It all comes down to monetization. I expect we’ll find numerous iterations as people get creative in the years to come but I wouldn’t expect any single standard in episode length.
Thanks for the post, Yuri. Keep it up.
~ JW
I get that twenty-two minutes is the length of a typical TV show, but if we’re going to be competing with those shows when viewers can watch whatever they want whenever they want, why use a time factored around commercial breaks? Not that I condone surfing the web at work, of course, but if we need to work around any break, it’s the coffee break. Yuri, maybe if all of those friends who aren’t web show watchers saw what people are doing outside of that standard twenty-two minute length, they’d end up liking the shorter web format. That lack of familiarity could be screwing with their perceptions.
I’m not opposed to longer shows, but I don’t know how realistic it is to expect a lot of people to be able to make them. I worked on one series a few years ago and most of our episodes were in the ten to thirteen minute range. It was enough time to tell the story for the episode and move the overall arc forward. It took an episode or two to get our pacing right, but I think it worked pretty well after that. Could we have done longer episodes? Not on the budget we had, and with the audio and visual expectations in place now, that’s going to be an even bigger problem for production teams without proven track records and budgets. If anyone has the resources and the drive, I wouldn’t stop him/her. I’d just want to be sure it’s in the best interest of the story.
There are a lot of factors other than episode length that I think hurt web entertainment being taken seriously by the public at large, but that’s a discussion for another day (hmm, maybe I’ll actually put my blog to good use). That said, you make some good points and I respect you and your work, so I’m going to try taking the scripts I’m working on for the first few episodes of one series and reworking them into a twenty-two minute pilot. If nothing else,it’ll give me more writing practice. Plus, as my partners and I keep shaping the world of the other show I’m working on, a longer running time might better serve what we’re trying to accomplish.
Amber, I’m in one of those households that’s done away with cable in favor of Netflix, the internet, and Apple TV. Oddly, I find that I watch a lot more full-length movies, documentaries, shorts, and web series than I do half-hour or hour-long shows (Dr. Who aside). It’s strange because growing up I’d just watch TV for hours.
Thanks for all the responses!
First off, a clarification: I by no means think we should only have one time limit. I think if someone wants to make shows that are only 3 minutes long or someone else wants to make a series that’s 18 minutes and 31 seconds long, then do it. I agree with you, Jesse, that there’s really no time limit on the web and we can take advantage of that. As a storyteller, I think whatever works best for your story is what you should go with. If it’s 10 minutes, great, if it’s 45 minutes, awesome.
My main point is that it’s time to be okay with long-form content online. I think it would really help evolve what we’re doing. And Jesse — my main complaint with Bannen was the five minute episodes. It didn’t feel like a five minute kind of show. After watching a few I just said, you know what? I’ll watch the film. And I did and it was significantly better. I would’ve TOTALLY watched the film online, I think. I would’ve at least watched a 30 minute Bannen Show online, easy.
Jamison — I agree with what you’re saying but I don’t at all agree about sticking to the 7 minute thing. People are watching Hulu, people are watching long-form. I think the longer we stick with 7 minutes the more we’re stunting our own growth. We’re an ever growing genre, at this point, stagnation is our enemy.
Eric — I say work within your limits and work within your story. If you can shoot a 30 minute series and it’s strongest at 30 minutes, I’m saying it’s okay for you to do it and not worry about the silly self-imposed limit we’ve all put on ourselves. If your story is best told in 10 minutes and it’s what you can shoot with what you’ve got, stick to that!
It’s late and I’m tired and I’m not going to re-read this comment, but thanks for the comments everyone and I hope I made sense!
It’s funny to read this and think back on the first review we got of our series and how we got slammed for our 1st episode being way too long for the web (at 6.5 minutes). A lot has changed in even just the last year. I would love nothing more than to be able to produce 22 or 30 minute episodes…but I agree with Eric O. in that I think that is a scary proposition. Our whole first season was 45 minutes and it cost us $10,000 to make (about 70% of which came from my partner and I’s pockets [read that as from our unemployment checks...sad, but true] and the rest from family and friends). I think people are willing to watch longer content (I am)…but it will mean we need to really step up our game in getting funding and pitching show ideas to the people with the money. All this being said…I definitely want much longer episodes on the next project I produce. But most importantly…I want to strive for quality…as I am sure we all do.
It’s all about the money. When you raid your piggy bank to create a web show, all you’re really doing is practicing, geting better at writing, directing, editing, etc. When you’re using somebody else’s money, then you’re going to hear, “how am I going to get a return on my investment?” When I recently pitched Armada as a hour-long sci-fi action series — I pitched it as a web show. And the execs weren’t convinced there would be enough of a return simply by using a Netflix-type subscription model. I don’t completely disagree. The monetization of longer form content isn’t quite there — it’s coming, but not quite there.
And that’s the key to producing longer content. To raise the funding, you have to prove there’s a potential for return. It’s basically the same paradigm as pitching shows to networks. Show the money guys they can make MORE money, and they’ll write checks. The only real difference between “traditional” content and digital is the delivery method. When longer forms can show a positive ROI, then the money will come.
Well said, Sir!
From the perspective of someone who does a lot more watching than creating, it’s all about content. If I’m enjoying a show, I WANT it to be long. Especially comedy! People want to laugh. If you can make me laugh for an hour, then make it happen! I think it’s much easier for a writer to create a 5 minute video that is hilarious than to develop a 30-60 minute story that will continually surprise and entertain. Web writers should challenge themselves!
So, yes….give me something that will satisfy for longer than 7 minutes. Please.